Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3602 ..

(Extension of time granted) I thank members. Mr Waterford continued:

But in that golden age, it is said, the reach of the state into the lives of the community, and the size and the level of complexity of executive government, was much smaller than now. One hundred years ago, say, a United Kingdom could maintain the largest Navy afloat with a War Office of perhaps 40 people, probably gathered in a single building ...

Since this golden age, if ever it existed, much has changed. Government has moved into the social welfare field, intervenes far more actively in the economy, has acquired a much more centralised role in law and order, and regulates in almost every area of human life. Vast armies of bureaucrats are now necessary.

It would be beyond the wit of any mortal to be across the details of each individual piece of administration, in which, probably, several million decisions a day are made touching the rights or property of its citizens. Any such decision might be made routinely in an office several thousand kilometres from where the minister works, by a clerk that the minister would never, in the course of ordinary business, be expected to see.

Those obviously are remarks framed for the Commonwealth Public Service, Mr Speaker, but they apply, with great respect, equally in the ACT. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility has never been that a Minister must resign when a mistake is made by his department, no matter that that mistake might have very serious consequences. It is disgraceful that members of parliament, members of an alternative government, no less, will come into this place and pretend that that popular misconception of ministerial responsibility is actually the case. It is disgraceful, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether they actually believe the claptrap that they have spoken in this place or whether they have simply misunderstood.

Mr Speaker, what I think the Assembly deserves today, if we are going to have this motion seriously considered, is a succinct statement from Labor of the standard of ministerial responsibility which they believe should be applied in this place. What I do not want is some self-serving case specific test like: "If a Minister demolishes a hospital and kills a little girl, then she has to resign". That is not going to be a very enduring test, Mr Speaker. As I said, that is a case specific test. That is the old star chamber. "If we think you should be guilty, we will make you guilty".

I want the test to be indicated. Tell us what the test is. Tell us how the standard should apply from this day forward. When you have articulated the test explain to us, if you can, why the previous occasions where serious consequences have flown from the mistakes of Minister's departments have not led to the resignation or sacking of the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .